User talk:Elonka/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

ANI

Hello, Elonka. I have concerns about your behavior in the sockpuppet investigation and have raised them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Elonka_on_a_fishing_expedition.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvine22 (talk • contribs) 03:43, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, Irvine has asked for diffs to support the allegations of sockery. These I feel he is due. Would you mind pointing out the edits that you believe support the allegation? Thanks, 05:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

nvm, SPI is closed. Happy editing. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting archive link, for future reference.[1] --Elonka 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello, Elonka. Unfortunately the ANI thread I started seems to have been closed before you had a chance to comment. I feel there are some outstanding issues here, and I'd like to try to thrash them out short of a report to the Audit subcommittee at Arbitration. As you know, it is my opinion that that you requested a Checkuser in my sockpuppetry case without evidence - certainly not evidence that met the verifiability standards of the guidelines. Can you explain the evidentiary basis on which you were proceeding? Are you confident that it was within the guidelines? Irvine22 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC) SPI guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Evidence_and_SPI_case_guidelines

I requested the Checkuser request Irvine22 not Elonka and I really have no problem if you take it any forum you want, but I suggest you read the reaction to your ANI thread before wasting your and other peoples time. --Snowded ^TALK 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You made the initial request at Elonka's prompting, and on the basis of "evidence" that was not verified by diffs, as the guidelines require. Elonka then bundled another four users into the check on the basis of no evidence whatsover that I can see. Believe me, I am quite bored with this matter. I am also quite prepared to persevere with it until some clarity is reached. The privacy of users is a very serious matter, don't you agree? Irvine22 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we had a sock and you were an obvious suspect. Having come to that reasonable conclusion the responsibility for making the report was mine and mine alone. Centralising similar cases is normal practice. There is no evidence that you are bored with the matter. At no stage was the privacy of any user threatened in the making of this SPI report or its follow through.--Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobodys privacy has in anyway been revealed by the CU. In fact you are the one with your edits from your IP that have revealed your location. BigDunc 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not my privacy that concerns me - I have already stated that I am in Southern California. But it seems there are four other people who have been checked up on, on the basis of no verifiable evidence, and in apparent violation of Wikipedia's own guidelines. Irvine22 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - did you read the guidelines for SPI before filing your report? Have you read them now? Having read them, would you do anything different? Irvine22 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In the same circumstances I would do the same thing Irvine --Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So when the guidelines indicate that evidence must be "verifiable and in the form of diffs", why do you feel it is okay for you to disregard that? Irvine22 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If the evidence had not been good enough then it would have been rejected--Snowded ^TALK 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So that's where we need to hear from Elonka and perhaps Nathan, beacuse it looks to me that the "evidence" did not meet guidelines and should have been rejected. Irvine22 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So its nothing to with Elonka, but the patrolling admin who has already answered you on the ANI thread.--Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Elonka made additional requests to bundle four more users into the check. Nathan, as Clerk, evidently approved the request. I'd like to hear from them on the evidentiary basis for their actions, and whether they feel their actions were within the guidelines. It's all about accountability, innit? Irvine22 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well in their shoes I would ignore you, you enjoy this thing far too much and accountability is a two way street. I should really have ignored you here, I just wanted to make it clear that responsibility for the SPI report was mine and mine alone.--Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If they wish to ignore my good-faith efforts to settle this dispute short of a report to Audit, that is obviously a matter for them. I'll wait a couple days to see whether they wish to respond. Irvine22 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had a CU done on me 3 times I think with a lot less circumstantial evidence than was on your case. So the editors you are defending have nothing to fear, Disclosure of CheckUser results is subject to privacy policy, which broadly states that identifying information should not be disclosed under any but a few circumstances. And none of the circumstances are happening here. So this can be dropped now. BigDunc 18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be overstepping my bounds here, but I'm going to make the same request on behalf of Elonka that I made on my talk page: Please take this conversation elsewhere. This is not a matter to be discussed on multiple users' talk pages. Irvine, if you truly intend to pursue the matter, then do so. I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding what you hope to accomplish by engaging in arguments in a variety of different fora. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The responsibility for determining whether a check is merited rests with the checkuser, and the same is true for any subsequent disclosures. If a checkuser determines that a check is unnecessary, then you'll see  Declined on the request. While others may request a check be performed, CUs have the final discretion on the use of the tool and the data it provides. While different checkusers might come to different decisions on individual requests, all checkusers abide by the same general guidelines set by the privacy policy - which basically requires that the check and derived data be used to prevent disruption to the project. A reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is usually enough to meet that threshold. Nathan ^T 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is what the SPI reporting guidlines say:

" If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks. Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected." (my emphases)

Is this guideline no longer operative? It clearly wasn't followed in this case. Irvine22 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I posted the RFCU template and endorsed it for checkuser attention, and a checkuser performed the check. Any concerns about privacy should be addressed directly to and with that checkuser, Dominic. The guideline is used for people unfamiliar with filing cases, it doesn't restrict or guide checkusers or clerks in the evaluation of cases. Even so, the guideline was followed in this case - Snowded presented a reasonable suspicion that several accounts were linked, which if true would represent a violation of the WP:SOCK policy. I don't see anything to be gained by discussing this further here. If you have general questions about SPI, I'd be happy to answer them on my talkpage or WT:SPI. If you have questions about the use of checkuser in your case, you should address them to Dominic. Nathan ^T 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view it's all about politcal opinion, the likes of Snowded have no other aim but to attack the United Kingdom, push for POV terminology and accuse editors they dislike of various wrongdoings. A quick look at your userpage Snowded explains your motives clearly. A Welsh nationalist, with a dislike for the union and any union terminology, whose aim is to support your gaelic brothers across the irish sea in their noble endeavor to kick the British occupiers out of Ireland back to Britain. Trickyjack (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at your edits is more than enough to explain your motives clearly. You say you were the subject to pretty severe personal attacks. Provide the Diff's! Here are the Diff's for your edits since you started!

1st edits (supposed): Edit waring against WP:IMOS [2][3]

Personal attack on editors, making wild claims and accusations including sectarian attacks[4][5]

And so on, and on, more personal attacks with claims and accusations of a political nature. [6] [7] [8][9]

More personal attacks on an editors all with political thymes [10][11] [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

More Edit warring [26][27] and again [28][29] and yet again [30]

Again inserting unsupported personal opinion. [31][32]

Now provide the diff's!--Domer48_'fenian' 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've ignored all the nonsense they have posted on their own user page, including the personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith! --Domer48_'fenian' 23:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your tireless contribution. I really wanted to create articles about Ogedeids and Arghun. BTW, I am gonna expand the Ilkhanate, please correct it if I make any mistake.--Enerelt (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's one of the fun things about Wikipedia, is collaborating in the topic area of medieval history. You obviously know quite a bit about the Mongol Empire, and I have learned a great deal from your additions. If I might request one thing though, it would be if you could provide more sources? Sometimes I see you add something to an article which I would like to verify or expand, but since I don't know where your information came from, it becomes difficult for me to know where to look. I guess that I can add some {{cn}} tags though! Keep up the good work, --Elonka 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Trickyjack

I know it appears that editors are free to abuse Domer without sanction see the thread I started on Fozzie's page here but the latest offering from recently blocked Trickyjack are not acceptable [33]. He has been warned about civility before. BigDunc 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked. ;) --Elonka 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats good for all of our faults in The Troubles area I believe we are all here for the same purpose to build an encyclopedia, but I can't say the same for this editor. BigDunc 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello again, Elonka. I refer to matter of the on-going dispute over your actions in the recent SPI/Checkuser of myself and five other users. I have received intelligible answers to my questions about the way this was handled from Nathan and Dominic, respectively Clerk and Checkuser in this matter. You have yet to comment in your capacity as (I think) patrolling admin. I would prefer to settle this short of a report to the Audit subcommittee at Arbitration. If you don't want to engage with me on this matter in any of the venues where discussion has been on-going, might I suggest we agree to engage in an informal mediation with an uninvolved third-party? My concerns, as you know, center on your adding four additional users to the checkuser request on the basis of no verifiable evidence whatsoever. I feel this was an improper "fishing expedition". If you are agreable, please so indicate and we can proceed to consider which third parties to approach. Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22, enough. You're already on probation in the Troubles topic area, have a hefty block log,[34] and this just looks like more wiki-lawyering, as you're now complaining about what you say is an improper sockpuppet investigation. You've already brought it up in multiple venues, having taken up the time of the clerk,[35] the Checkuser,[36] an ANI thread,[37] and an extensive discussion here on my own talkpage.[38] Multiple uninvolved editors and admins have looked into this now, and told you that nothing improper occurred with the sockpuppet investigation. So please, stop forum-shopping, drop the stick, and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's time to get back to writing articles. --Elonka 02:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Except you haven't participated (until now) in the discussion on your talkpage. The Clerk and Checkuser provided explanations I found convincing as to why they acted on Snowded's unverified report about "Dick Stauner". The sole outstanding issue for me is the basis on which you added the four other users to the check. If you can explain that, even in a brief paragraph as did Nathan and Dominic, I expect this matter will be over and done with. I'd certainly like to move on - but privacy issues are important, as is accountability, don't you agree? Irvine22 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added them because they looked like obvious sockpuppets, all being disruptive on Troubles-related articles in the same period of time. It is classic behavior for a sockmaster, to have a burst of disruptive activity on multiple accounts. --Elonka 06:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A-ite. Irvine22 (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PHG

Hello Elonka, hope you're well. I have told PHG that he may edit the Imperial Japanese Navy article, which is currently being reviewed - see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1. I am sure this will turn out for the best. Well, I sure hope so anyway, because I'm going to look awfully stupid if it doesn't. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection, thanks for letting me know! I see that he's also changed account names, to Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs). --Elonka 04:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinn Féin again

Hi, two issues:

1. There's confusion about your question here, i.e. - Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization, what do you believe is the consensus of the above discussions? Not your personal opinion of how you'd like the article to be written, but what do you think the group consensus is at this point? Most editors seem to have answered this question as though it were asking about consensus on the issue itself, rather than how to deal with the issue. Could you assist by clarifying? (I've emboldened the relevant part of the question.)

2. At History of Sinn Féin, a dispute has arisen which - under the Arbcom Troubles remedy - I believe needs to be brought to the attention of an outside opinion (in order to avoid an edit war). As you know, there is an ongoing dispute at Sinn Féin about the foundation of the party:

• The party split in 1970 into two. Some editors claim, however, that the minority faction to that split (the party currently known as Sinn Féin, and previously referred to as Provisional Sinn Féin) now "owns" the continuity of the pre-split party; while other editors say that to favour one side of the split (the Provisionals) over the other (the party currently known as the Workers Party, and previously referred to as Official Sinn Féin) is (a) to go against the large majority of sources, and (b) in breach of NPOV. (Those supporting "continuity" argue that the sources favouring 1970 are not acceptable because they doubt the veracity of the primary research of some, and because some book titles and structures imply continuity.)

The History of Sinn Féin article is de facto an article about the party before the 1970 split. A dispute arose when one user attempted to insert a "Main article" tag into the article, directing to Sinn Féin. This was opposed because it supported the POV that the current party enjoys singular continuity with the pre-split party. Consensus emerged not to include this tag, although there was no consensus about inserting a different tag. Another editor, however, then added a "See also" tag - again directing to Sinn Féin. I was content with this, so long as there would also be a "see also" tag directing to Workers Party of Ireland. My attempt to insert this tag, however, has resulted in reverts by other editors. I sought to discuss the issue, but neither reverting editor has engaged. Hence I seek an uninvolved opinion. Thanks. (You can follow the history of the dispute from the Talk page. You'll see that users BigDunc, Domer48 and Cathar11 have reverted the "See:also WOrkers Party" tag, but that myself, Valenciano and Damac have all expressed support for a more neutral hatnote. There doesn't therefore appear to be any consensus for the "see also: Sinn Fein hatnote on its own.) Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an attempt to move the consensus building to another article. BigDunc 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's what it says it is: an attempt (a) to clarify the question, and (b) to avoid an edit war and resolve a dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So your attempt to stop an edit war is to insert content that has been removed by 3 editors, that's a good strategy. BigDunc 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The alternative is to take the hatnote away altogether, as there was no consensus for it. Maybe you'd be better advised discussing this on the relevant talk page? Mooretwin (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's let the poll run for a few more days, and then we'll see where we stand. --Elonka 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But we need to know what the poll is meant to be about! See request for clarification at (1) above. Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one confused Mooretwin, read the responses, everyone understands its to state what we thing the consensus is, and so far we have all said that its the current version. --Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful intervention. The stated question is "Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization", which appears to imply it's about how to deal with the issue rather than the issue itself. Whether or not that it correct, only Elonka can clarify - not you nor anyone else. Mooretwin (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming, Elonka, from your failure to respond to this request that you are unwilling to assist with the dispute at History of Sinn Féin. Accordingly, I intend to take the request to another admin, as there is a real danger of edit-warring, given the recent comment by Domer48. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise you are going to find somewhere else to discuss this. The forum shopping king. BigDunc 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that heads up. I was unaware of that. That rule didn't exist when I was here before so I had no idea. In the meantime, not knowing of that rule I did another revert. Apologies.

I pity your attempting to deal with the quagmire that is Sinn Féin on here. When I was active here a few years ago it used to drive most Irish posters up the wall with frustration. A small but vocal group of activists from various sides would wage edit wars against each other (well, I suppose it was a change from they and their respective IRAs waging actual wars against each other) and factual inaccuracies would be defended from one side or the other almost to the death even when every neutral historian knew for a fact that what was claimed was demonstrably factually accurate. For example Griffith did not join SF in 1905 and in fact the name "Sinn Féin" as a specific party name, going from memory, only dates from 1907. What was created was "Sinn Féin clubs" which meant that the organisation was just an umbrella for other organisations, and only became one identity in its own right later on.

Anyway, apologies for the second reversion. I'll unrevert (or is it re-revert) it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert, that works.  :) Also, since you have experience as an admin (though I understand you're participating here as an involved editor), I'd appreciate if you could participate in the "Consensus poll" thread on the talkpage? It would be helpful if you could take a look at the previous discussions, and add your own opinion to the list, of what you think the current consensus is. Even if you disagree with that consensus, it might still help to provide a baseline for future discussions and changes. Thanks, --Elonka 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Supporting accusations

You placed me on probation here citing this ruling here. I dispute this and you have not provided any supporting diff’s which would support the accusation that I engaged in edit-warring or disruptive editing on “Troubles” related articles I'm asking you now to do so. Editors who make claims and accusations should support them with diff's or withdraw them. Now Editors would like to see diff's which directly support your accusation and not explanations. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, probation was placed on your account in November, for 3 months, due to edit-warring and also defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication (I'd have to double-check for exact diffs). The probation would have expired in February, but since you were blocked in mid-December for violating the 1RR restriction, this extended it to mid-March. If you'd like to check diffs or your block log, check here, look around the time of early November 2009: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Elonka 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You were asked for the diff's to support your accusation not explanations! Now Editors would like to see them please. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs are here: Domer48 (talk · contribs). Click on your contribs, then review actions from November 1-11, 2009. Or is there something in particular that you're looking for? If it's helpful, here are the warnings (including diffs) which I placed on your talkpage leading up to the probation, on October 25, November 4, November 6, and November 8,[39] I might also point out that after you were placed under probation, your next edit summary was Please stay away with your nonsense. Does that help jog your memory at all? --Elonka 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a reasonable request and asked for the diff's which support your accusation! Now I'm not looking for a big song and dance about it! So one more time! Provide the diff's of me edit warring! Is that simple enough for you to understand!--Domer48_'fenian' 18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Elonka a reasonable request was made to you to provide diffs for Domer being placed on probation, your contention of edit warring is very hollow if you cant supply diffs. Why won't you supply the diffs you are asked for? I have asked you previously to supply diffs which I am still waiting on, what is this aversion you have?BigDunc 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you not able to see my above post, with diffs, from 16:50? --Elonka 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see the post but no evidence of edit warring only warnings from you. BigDunc 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the warnings, then you will see that they include diffs of the edit-warring and other behaviors which led to the probation. Which tools do you use to edit Wikipedia? I use WP:POPUPS, which means that I can just hover my mouse over a diff to see what it says. It's a great time-saver! --Elonka 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening a request for comment involves the formality of attempting to resolve the issue with the editor involved. Now I know I was not edit warring, and I'm unable to find diff's which would support this accusation and that is why I'm asking. Now Elonka, you can prevaricate all you want here if you want, but on a request for comment you will have to provide the diff's! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What issue exactly are you trying to address? You feel that you shouldn't be on probation? --Elonka 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer-why are you bringing this up now vice when the probation was put in place? Your demanding tone here is not helping you at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We are dealing with the accusation of edit warring! You have accused me of it and will not provide the diff's to support you claim. I'll then deal with your accusation of me defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication! I know that I shouldn't be on probation, I know I did not edit war, I know I did not defying consensus any consensus! I can also show with diff's that there is no consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication, I can also show with diff's you being dishonest not only about the consensus at at WP:RSN but also about 1RR! My tone is measured and reasonable Rlevse, so unless you are going to encourage the production of the Diff's what exactly are you here for? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, if you feel that the probation was inappropriate, your best tactic is to open a thread at WP:AE and ask for it to be reviewed. I have no objection to obtaining input from other uninvolved administrators on this matter. --Elonka 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No I consider a request for comment the best course! Since you will not provide the diff's to support you claims and accusations. The request for comment will be about you and focus on your actions. you will have to support the probation and you will need to provide the diff's. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about the Aubane Historical Society. The dispute sparked at the Irish Bulletin article, and then a thread was started at the Reliable Sources noticeboard in October 2009. I, as an uninvolved admin, reviewed the discussion and made a determination of consensus[40] at Talk:Irish Bulletin. This determination was then challenged at ANI.[41] Another uninvolved admin, DGG (talk · contribs), endorsed my views.[42] A followup thread at RSN also endorsed my determination.[43] The consensus of the multiple threads seems pretty substantial, that Aubane Historical Society is generally not to be regarded as a reliable source. Domer48, you keep saying that there's no consensus, but just because you disagree with the consensus, does not invalidate it. Threatening an RfC at this point just seems to be more forum shopping. Please, it's time to let this one go. --Elonka 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you bring it up again, the 'initiating editor' was later blocked for 3 months as a sock (although his talk page from that iteration does not reflect this fact for some reason). That process was a farce from the beginning. RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, more accusations! Elonka I'm not Threatening a RfC I've told you quite clearly that this was my intention should you continue to ignore reasonable requests. I have provided you the opportunity here to address the issue of diff's to support your claims and accusations against me and you simply prevaricate. Now as part of the RfC process, editors are encouraged to try and resolve the issue informally, and that is what I've attempted to do. The request must be supported by at least two editors who have attempted and failed to resolve the issue, to date I can count four editors who have asked you to supply diff's to support your accusations and on each and every occasion you ignored the request. While RashersTierney has summed up the issue of the sock abusing banned editor on the issue of the Aubane Historical Society quite well I will address Elonka's peculiar notions on what constitutes consensus, next. The fact is, I was not put on probation because of the Aubane Historical Society I did not "defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication" either and it seems pointless to ask but!!! Can you provide a diff of me defying consensus? I was put on probation for edit warring! I've asked for the diff's to support the accusation and still have not got anything other than more accusations. This type of conduct from an Admin is too common on the project and is detrimental to it in my opinion and perhaps it is beyond the scope of a RfC.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer you were given multiple warnings which include diffs to the edits that were problematic. If you can't be bothered to look at those (even after Elonka linked directly to them here) then its not up to anyone on this project to lead you around and read them to you. If you want the probation reviewed now, there are appropriate ways to do so - railing at Elonka and pretending to be blind aren't appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aubane Historical Society

Please note on Reliable Source Notice Board discussion who closed it. It was the same sock abusing IP who opened it. The attitude to this on ANI was quite clear and simple! This is the trainwreck of a WP:RS noticeboard discussion. Closure by IP editor did not seem to match consensus - I would say it should have been closed "no consensus". Regardless... here it is. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Even the sock abusing IP accepted this in the original discussion and ANI's determination. [44][45] To even suggest that the follow-up thread at RSN also endorsed [your] determination.[46] is without any merit at all. To suggest that this comment here by DGG was a ringing endorsement of your determination is again tendentious, it was not even part of the discussion at ANI or on Reliable Source Notice Board it was on the article talk page and was posted before the ANI tread. In light of all this your comment above "The consensus of the multiple threads seems pretty substantial..." I'll let editors judge it on its merits. I'll also leave it to editors to find if they can were I was "defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication"? You could help by providing a diff? Elonka you made a determination, your determination is not consensus. Now you have not being able to support you claim on consensus, can you now support your accusation of edit warring? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the air and putting this behind us

The IP must be laughing his rocks off. This whole fiasco began when a disruptive editor with an agenda to have AHS put on a 'black list' began to edit disruptively. At the time no 'involved editor' dare question his bone fides without being smacked with a WP:AGF notice. Fine - let the game play out. The dishonest IP is eventually range-blocked, yet the series of faulty decisions put in train still stands, Irish Bulletin remains untouched because of a totally unnecessary 1RR, and well intentioned eds. (all contributors here) are at each others throats. Enough. Drop it please (thats you too Elonka). RashersTierney (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility?

Can I ask your opinion whether this represents incivility? If you think I was uncivil as well feel free to tell me, but I don't think I was. Scolaire (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(sigh). I left him a note, thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Crusades symposium

That's me! And my paper is based on a Wikipedia article...which may be a terrible idea, or a brilliant one... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Butting in, but I'd bet it's either William the Carpenter ... how much is the conference, anyway? I might boogie down from Central Illinois for some of it if it's not too frightful. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! It's $85, or $55 for graduate students. Symposium is February 17-20, with Adam's talk on the 20th. More information here:[47] --Elonka 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is William the Carpenter. The title gives it away! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The paper isn't online, by the way. Is that normal for conferences? I know history conferences sometimes publish the proceedings, sometimes years later, but I've never seen anything online beforehand, other than titles or abstracts. Actually I haven't even written it yet, and I have to whittle away my article-sized file into only 20 minutes worth of info. The germ of it is in the Wikipedia article and the talk page, but there's lots more I didn't mention there, in case there happened to be a certain convenient conference in the near future :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It really varies with the speaker's history. For myself, I have a few talks which I tend to give in multiple venues, and a common question I get from attendees is, "Can I download your slides?" So I have a directory or three on my website from which people can download a version of my presentation. Also, I've sometimes seen speakers who publish a paper in a journal somewhere, and then give talks based on their publication. What are you planning for your own? Slides, or just speaking extemporaneously? --Elonka 03:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was originally writing to publish but I found someone else had already written an article about him (it may not have been published yet; I haven't seen it yet, at least). No slides, I'll just speak...not extemporaneously though, I'll have to bring something to read. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the Symposium requiring a word-for-word read in the talks? I always hate those. Checking notes is fine, but if someone's reading something word-for-word, I'd usually rather that they just gave it to me in a handout.  :/ --Elonka 16:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes, yes...I'm not going to risk memorizing it or speaking off the top of my head though. It's kind of a miracle that I can speak in front of people at all, so if I have to read, I have to read! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your turtle photo goes to the main page!

Thanks again for uploading commons:File:ThienMuTurtle2001.jpg! After I nominated the bixi (tortoise) article for DYK, the posting admin chose that picture (from others available in the article) to put to the DYK page - which means that it will be on the main page for 6 hours... Presently, it's in the Template:Did_you_know/Queue. Just to let you know. Vmenkov (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww, thanks for letting me know! I'll have to tell some of my friends that my elbow is making it onto the mainpage.  ;) --Elonka 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You WP:CDA comment (now at WT:CDADR)

RE: Community de-Adminship.

Hi, I moved you comment on 'editors in good standing' (and my and MacDui's responses) to the draft page, as Newyorkbrad raised the matter there, and has had some responses. It's better all in one place, and the draft page is where all the discussion currently is. I took out my comments on Ireland, they were hardly needed. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on the discussion. :) --Elonka 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Church of the East" and the Eastern Orthodox Church

Hi Elonka. I'm not sure if "Church of the East" can refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, or if the terms refer to distinctly different entities that just have similar sounding names. If the latter is true, I think the article should be reverted back to what I had put so that people do not confuse the two names. SoccerMan2009 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an article, it's a disambiguation page, so it should be fine. See WP:MOSDAB. --Elonka 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bad block. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:24, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

'Consensus' poll

Can I just remind you to close the 'Consensus' poll on the Sinn Féin talk page? Once a poll like that is started, it is important to do the whole header, footer and summary thing so that it is not left open to "interpretation" later. The last post of any sort to that section (or that page) was eight days ago. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the nudge. I went ahead and closed it. --Elonka 02:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Elonka.

I would like to offer my support surrounding the issue with a currently blocked user whose behaviour has been nothing short of atrocious. That’s all (= --大輔 泉 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That a surprise, and I suppose your behavior towards the same editor when you called him a fuckwit, twat and a cunt all I might add without any restrictions being placed on you shows how neutral you are in this matter, this behavior was atrocious. BigDunc 09:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Province of the Patriarch (East Syrian Ecclesiastical Province)

Hi Elonka, Thanks for adding a couple of links to the section on the diocese of Shenna d'Beth Ramman. I have now shifted that whole section from the province of Adiabene to the province of the patriarch, in case you're wondering what happened to it. Do please continue making constructive edits to my articles on the Church of the East if you want some civilised company. It must be hell being an administrator.

Djwilms (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Boyd

I reviewed the history before making my edits. My edits did not disrupt any matters on which consensus had been reached. The prior extensive discussion concerned matters such as the title of the page and its capitalization, which I left intact. I have made edits like this on many other pages, most of which contain information that comes directly or indirectly from pages' subjects themselves. Generally my changes have been upheld by the community. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LostSeason3

Template:LostSeason3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)